For those old enough to remember...

Brosnan_fan · December 2007

I was wondering what all forum members 45-50+ years old thought when Roger Moore was signed as James Bond for LALD.

Did you think he had the chops for the role, did you consider he might have been another Lazenby or were you happy to simply accept the fact {:) and go along for the ride?

I bring this up because there seems to be just a little bit of dissent left over the casting of Daniel Craig :v, and couldn't help but wonder what it might have been like in a different era when Bond actors were being replaced.

Barbel · December 2007

The biggest difference at the time (and I'm between 45 and 50) between Moore and Lazenby was that Roger was a known quantity while George was a complete unknown.

Moore was familiar to audiences not only from years of playing Simon Templar in The Saint but also from the then very recent The Persuaders. His image thus included driving an Aston Martin, flirting with exotic beauties and fighting various degrees of bad guy while investigating or otherwise becoming involved in international crime and/or espionage... all of which pretty much ties in with the image of James Bond.

Moore becoming Bond after DAF was therefore accepted fairly readily since his qualifications for the part were clear and well-established.

mpoplawski · December 2007

I totally agree with the comments on the Moore in LALD. I was a real big Bond fan in the sixties, in fact my whole family was into it (I was a little over 10 years old. When Connery left my mother refused to see any more of the movies. When Roger Moore did his first, which I thought was a good attempt, are reaction was "Connery made a big mistake." Moore was actually pretty good. I remembered him from the Saint days always liked him. Then immediately after LALD the movies took a very rapid nose dive. By '80 I was done.

highhopes · December 2007

mpoplawski wrote:

I totally agree with the comments on the Moore in LALD. I was a real big Bond fan in the sixties, in fact my whole family was into it (I was a little over 10 years old. When Connery left my mother refused to see any more of the movies. When Roger Moore did his first, which I thought was a good attempt, are reaction was "Connery made a big mistake." Moore was actually pretty good. I remembered him from the Saint days always liked him. Then immediately after LALD the movies took a very rapid nose dive. By '80 I was done.

Pretty much my story exactly. Didn't get back into Bond again until the controversy over Craig broke out.

Mailfist · December 2007

I remember thinking he was a good choice when I heard as I was a big fan of The Saint and The Persuaders. I came out of LALD thinking not SC but he will do, but as time went on I got more disillusioned and when it was announced that TD had been signed I practically did a lap of honour around the living room.

Mark Hazard · December 2007

Being 55, and brought up on Connery I well remember the change(s).

I may as well comment on them all:-

With George, I remember having seen the Big Fry ads and even then thought that he could play Bond, even my mother (who didn't like Connery) said that he would be a great 007. When he came to be announced as the new Bond I accepted it without any problems at all. I feel that it must have something to do with not having a preconceived idea of what he may be like.

Now, when Roger was first mentioned as being Bond, I remember my first thought being "NO!"

Roger was and (as far as I am concerned) is The Saint and until Octopussy, I still couldn't accept it as anything other than The Saint playing 007. My dismay at Roger's taking over wearing the PPK resulted in my collection almost being put on hold, I didn't buy a lot of Moore related Bond merchandise during the 70s and 80s.

Again when Dalton took over, I felt that as I hadn't really got any preconceived idea of what he may be like and I accepted him.

When Brosnan took over the role, my reaction was again "NO!", X-( he was after all the terrible Remmington Steele, again, my mother said that he'd make a good Bond and I must admit that I was impressed from the beginning of GoldenEye.

When Craig was given the P99, although I had gotten used to Brosnan, I again had no problem, as with Lazenby and Dalton I feel that it must have been something to do with not having any idea of what he may be like - the only film of his I was consious of seeing was The Mother and the difference between the films wasn't worth comparing.

Loeffelholz · December 2007

Brosnan_fan wrote:

I was wondering what all forum members 45-50+ years old thought when Roger Moore was signed as James Bond for LALD.

Did you think he had the chops for the role, did you consider he might have been another Lazenby or were you happy to simply accept the fact {:) and go along for the ride?

I bring this up because there seems to be just a little bit of dissent left over the casting of Daniel Craig :v, and couldn't help but wonder what it might have been like in a different era when Bond actors were being replaced.

Roger Moore was never James Bond for me...he was merely someone playing the part. Mind you, I was very happy that Bond films were still being made---and I saw and purchased them all when they became available on Classic VHS B-) ---but I never cared for Moore's interpretation; the increasing emphasis on comedy...which devolved, IMRO, into parody both intentional and otherwise, offended my Fleming-driven sense of what the character ought to be.

I'm quite a fan of Moore as the Saint...as Beau Maverick...as Sean Fynn (The Wild Geese! B-) )...and as himself---a charming gentleman, elder statesman, and humanitarian extraordinaire. I'd simply rather he hadn't been 007---for what will undoubtedly always be the longest tenure of any Bond actor

If the internet had been in full swing when we transitioned from Connery to Lazenby to Connery to Moore, the instant feedback from fanboys would have been fascinating to observe.

JADE66 · December 2007

I was 13 at the time and not really familiar with Roger Moore. Connery had always been Bond and I remember wondering why he wasn't any longer. When LALD finally came to television I remember being disappointed. This was not the Bond I knew. I wanted Connery back almost immediately.
Despite my diatribes against the Roger Moore films, I have to admit that he really wasn't
BAD in the role. Just not very good. I can watch Moore in FYEO and TSWLM and enjoy his performances despite the silliness. But LALD was so ludicrous that I felt let down from the
get go.
Now, at 47, with Daniel Craig assuming the mantle
I can finally say BOND IS BACK.;)

RJJB · December 2007

I always look forward to a new Bond movie, regardless of who's playing the lead. I saw all the movies multiple times, but I never liked Roger Moore. I knew him from the Saint and I never thought he was rough and tumble enough to play Bond effectively. He was always too prissy and never believable as a serious threat to the enemy or capable of being the Lothario that Bond supposedly is. He may have had the longest tenure of any actor, but for me he was just holding the place until someone capable came along. And no matter how much people may like him, he will always be known as the man who replaced Sean Connery in the role, after Connery left.

Tee Hee · December 2007

[Picks up the red scrambler]

"Moore Not Less? T.H. here. We've got a bit of a situation over at AJB.

Yes. Appears to be another outbreak of Moore Derangement Syndrome (MDS). Moore-Ons are everwhere!

Fire up the Lotus at once! We've got to contain this menace before it spreads to the outer reaches of the James Bond fan community, namely Mi6 and CBn.

What's that? You installed a new horn? A Tarzan yell you say? Excellent.

Attire? Clown suit optional this time.

Steady that shark gun! I don't think you'll be needing it on this mission. Wrist dart gun should be sufficient.

Yes, I'll supply the tunes. Beach Boys? Who else?

Now hurry and pick me up. When you pull into my driveway, give me a slide whistle and I'll join you.

I just hope we're not too late."

[Hangs up]

Loeffelholz · December 2007

Say hello to MNL for me :v

Tee Hee · December 2007

Loeffelholz wrote:

Say hello to MNL for me :v

If I didn't know any better, I would say you've already heard from him.

Did you not receive that little golden bullet in the mail? :v

Shame, after we went to all that trouble getting it inscribed for you.

John Drake · December 2007

highhopes wrote:

mpoplawski wrote:

Moore was actually pretty good. I remembered him from the Saint days always liked him. Then immediately after LALD the movies took a very rapid nose dive. By '80 I was done.

Pretty much my story exactly. Didn't get back into Bond again until the controversy over Craig broke out.

I had a similar reaction to the Brosnan era. I was happy to see GE, but thought it was flawed. Same with TND. I was bored by TWINE at the cinema, shifting uneasily in my seat as I willed the film to end. I didn't even bother going to see DAD at the cinema. It was the fact that Eon finally had the rights to CR that brought the old magic back for me.

7289 · December 2007

Was a big Bond fan from the Connery Era, being 11 when "Goldfinger" came out. I had seen FRWL a few months previous. For me Connery WAS Bond, and when Lazenby hit - he just didn't cut it! I tired hard to like him, but his hairstyling was awful and he seemed too young.

SC came back for DAF, and with his unshaven brow(s), bad toupee, and way thick Scot's burr I wished he hadn't. The old SC had really departed.

RM came in, I knew him from the Saint, like GL he never jelled as Bond for me, and after TMWTGG the comedy became so bad I almost didn't see the films, when I did I cringed. By his own admission Bond was a just a "job" for Moore, he never took the part seriously, and was just there to hit is marks and say his lines. He is an engaging "personality", but never serious about playing the art of Bond. Strange too as he actually "acted" in other movie parts.

blueman · December 2007

I remember liking Moore's Bond fine when I was a kid. But by MR something had shifted for me, Bond just seemed to be a joke of strung-out set pieces recycled from other films. And I've been shrugging at Bond ever since. Like others, Bond didn't really "return" for me till Craig took over in CR.

Willie Garvin · December 2007

I'm 56 years old, and when I was growing up Sean Connery simply WAS James Bond--and he still is,as far as I'm concerned.It's my belief that Connery's an example of an actor who is so well-suited to a certain role that it's very difficult to imagine anyone else being his equal playing it.Big Tam brought pretty much everything anyone might possibly want to James Bond--dark good looks,an imposing athletic physique,a distinctive speaking voice, and considerable acting talent.He's not just an actor, he's also a star--and that's rare.Unlike any of the actors who followed him(aside from George Lazenby)Connery was not internationally known.He was seasoned and professional,but still a relative unknown to most auddiences worldwide--and this was an asset for Connery because it allowed him to "become" James Bond without bringing the excess baggage of other more famous characterizations to his performances.And on a physical level it was easy to believe Connery in action as Fleming's character whether he was presented as a lady's man or as the service's lethal killing machine.

No other 007 actor has ever been this completely convincing to me.

I've seen all of the James Bond films in their proper chronological order-as they originally appeared in theatres- and although I like all of the other actors who've played James Bond--they all bring valid interpretations to the part-,none of them has displaced Sean Connery.It's a mark of his skill(and in his own eyes something of a curse) that Sean Connery became the template for James Bond,and therefore set the standard for every actor who followed him.No matter how talented any of the other 007 actors might be,they'll always be compared to Connery in some fashion.That's a sign of Connery's impact on the character, and is his cinematic legacy.

About Roger Moore--I've always liked him.In interviews and talk shows Roger comes across as a very charming and wonderfully self-deprecating fellow.He's particularly admirable because of his tireless off-screen work for UNICEF--and his knighthood was long overdue.

It's interesting to note that with only a few exceptions, Roger's made a long career out of playing heroic types("Boy Scouts"-he calls them).Overall, I've enjoyed his performances as Ivanhoe(opposite a young Desmond Llewllyn),and as British gold miner Silky Harris in The Alaskans.I recall his clever turn as gambler Beau Maverick on Maverick, and consider Roger's interpretation of the gentleman outlaw Simon Templar-"the Saint" to be one of the highpoints of his acting career.Indeed,with The Saint,Roger really found his ideal role as the original international man of mystery.In fact,Roger was so impressive in this part,that he actually made a fan out of Saint creator Leslie Charteris, who was almost impossible to please whenever it came to the actors who played Simon Templar.As with Sean Connery and James Bond,Roger Moore and Simon Templar are examples of the right man in the right role.(And despite certain vague surface similarities,while both the James Bond and Simon Templar characters wear tuxedoes and become involved in international adventures,they are nevertheless as different as night and day.)

Having seen Roger Moore as several other heroic characters, I therefore had a difficult time accepting him as James Bond.For a long time he was still Simon Templar--or Beau Maverick.And I don't think it helped Roger that so many of his Bond films were really little more than lightweight chase comedies.Some of them are fun--I'd be lying if I said I didn't enjoy most of Roger's 007 films--but they rarely seemed like real James Bond adventures to me."Carry On 007" maybe--but not Ian Fleming's 007.

That said,and in all fairness,at the time Roger Moore became the third 007,probably no other actor in the world could've followed Sean Connery successfully.As noted,Roger Moore was already internationally famous via his Saint series-so audiences knew what they'd be getting with him as 007.Overall, signing Roger was a very good business decision on the part of Eon.Additionally,the ever youthful Roger(who began playing Bond at age 46) certainly did his share to keep the series going strong.But as with Connery, he appeared in at least two Bond films too many for my taste(yes,even Connery made a few disappointing 007 flicks:You Only Live Twice and Diamonds Are Forever).
However,it was great to see Roger Moore demonstrate in films such as For Your Eyes Only that he could very definitely play a serious James Bond,when given the right material.Unfortunately,films like that one were the exception rather than the rule during Roger's time at Eon.

So in answer to the question-as much as I appreciate Roger's efforts as Bond,Sean's still the 007 for me.:)

PinewoodSpy · December 2007

Well im 40 so probably not quite the demographic - but LALD was my first film - I didnt see DN till it hit the TV i think in 1978 or 9 (got a pic of my dog on Xmas day about that time and the DN ad break is in the background)

RM was the Saint (too young for the Pursuaders) and he did bring something to the role - evrytime an actor in the franchise changes people wont like it - but he did lighten things (wrongly now im this age) but im not sure the franchise could have lasted in that era.

Off topic i guess but when I saw the premire of LD i just hated Dalton (which is bad cos i was born in the same hospital as him!) but Craig blew me away in CR and I could help but be reminded of the scene in Dr No when Bond blows Strangeways apart with such cold precision. Same applies during TWINE (?) with the german doctor - i think its up to the script and the director who makes bond good or bad ?

(and I am a newbie so be gentle LOL)

superado · December 2007

I might have a bias since I'm a few years shy of 45. Though I've been a Bond fan since seeing FRWL on TV (US TV Premiere: 14th January 1974, Source: MI6), RM was the resident Bond when I first began going to the movies, first with TSWLM, with MR fully cementing that particular "cool" element of Bond that exclusively appeals to youngsters, just as GF did along with the 6 Million $ Man, Star Trek and Batman the TV series.

Arguably, the same element, though uniquely suited to later generations of youth, was played up w/Brosnan's reign telling by the thrasher type 007 video games from that period, just as the ganstarapper trend that's an extension of that, permeating today's mainstream is condusive to DC's bad-a**, hard-edged, spikey-haired, shake-it-up interpretation of Bond.

Lady Rose · January 2008

PinewoodSpy wrote:

Well im 40 so probably not quite the demographic - but LALD was my first film - ...

Ditto. I don't remember any specifics of RM taking over but he was my Bond and LALD was my first film ( Thanks,Dad {[] )

I remember that my Dad had no concerns re him being Bond. He was well known and I think with RM, what you see is what you get.There are rarely any surprises.

Mailfist · January 2008

Unfortunately (or maybe fortunately depending on how you look at it) I am old enough to remember all the Bonds after SC being announced.

My first Bond movie was GF and I remember coming out of it totally blown away. JB was the man and SC was god.

When SC announced he was quitting it was on a par with The Beatles breaking up. When GL was announced I seem to remember not being that bothered by the fact that he was an unknown (after all I had never heard of SC before seeing GF) it was more a case of it doesn't matter who they cast he wont be SC.

However, I went to OHMSS with an open mind and thoroughly enjoyed it. I thought GL as good but no SC. When Gl announced he was not doing another one I don't remember being particuliarly bothered (although now I wish he had)and when it was announced SC was coming back it was almost a religious experience. I came out of DAF thinking - Bond is back. Shows how things change with time, now I don't really like DAF as I consider it one of the campest and weakest of the series and Connery's performance has none of the edge of his earlier performances.

When RM was announced I was happy as I had been a big fan of The Saint and The Persuaders. As pointed out by other contributers unlike Lazenby Moore was a known quantity so you had an idea what you were going to get. I remember going to see LALD 5 times in its first week and thinking about Moore 'he's not SC but he'll do'. It was really only after TSWLM that I got disinchanted with RM when the movies turned into Bond comedies rather than Bond thrillers.

I was really pleased when it was announced Moore was quitting after AVTAK as I thought he should have left after MR. At that time PB was an almost cert and like RM he was a known quantity with Remington Steele so I was happy with the thought of him as a replacement. It was a bit of a surprise when TD was announced. I had seen him in a few movies and thought he would be good at getting back to a harder Bond.

Although I was disappointed that TD did not do more this was balanced up by the expectations of what PB would do with the role.

I will hold up my hands and admit that the only Bond actor that I thought was completely wrong for the part when he was announced was DC. I remember ringing up a friend who is another Bond fan and saying the producers have lost it. The next day they came and took the phone out of my ward in the hospital. Having seen CR I am now a confirmed Craigite.

Bit of a ramble I know but when you get to my age you have to get your memories down before senile decay sets in and I start to say things like ' Sean who - is he the bloke who played Jason Bourne's dad'.

Napoleon Plural · January 2008

Mailfist wrote:

I remember ringing up a friend who is another Bond fan and saying the producers have lost it. The next day they came and took the phone out of my ward in the hospital.

That's an intriguing line to just drop in Mailfist!

Or have I missed something? ?:)

Mailfist · January 2008

Hi Napolean - making a joke. Something along the lines off I had to be mental to think Craig wouldn't be good.

Tee Hee · January 2008

Mailfist wrote:

Hi Napolean - making a joke. Something along the lines off I had to be mental to think Craig wouldn't be good.

Well strap me in a straightjacket and have me committed, because I'm still not seeing it.

Have the men in the white coats stop by Nap's house as well.

Napoleon Plural · January 2008

How dare you call me Napoleon! I'm the President of the United States!

Loeffelholz · January 2008

Tee Hee wrote:

Well strap me in a straightjacket and have me committed, because I'm still not seeing it.

Have the men in the white coats stop by Nap's house as well.

The appropriate agencies have been dispatched :v

De Bleuchamp · January 2008

Yes I'm 52, and in July 1973 (I was 17) we went to see Live and Let Die at the Weston-Super-Mare Odeon cinema.(seaside in the summer.)
Roger Moore was very well known and had his haircut short for Bond, but he was still a joke telling smoothy, compared with the tough Connery style. Any Bond film will be sucessful, but they weren't like the book character.
Mind you it did have Bond's flat at the beginning
and the lovely Madeline Smith.(Miss Caruso.)
De Bleuchamp.

"Maybe he should've been gift-wrapped!" OHMSS.

SMITH · January 2008

I think Moore was a good choice...but he didn't want to take the role seriously, and he wanted to maintain a certain image inconsistent with the role of 007.

cosmo · February 2008

CTrent49 wrote:

I don't think that Connery was anymore consistent with the role of Bond than Moore was. The only actor who seemed to come close to the real 007 for me was Dalton. But I don't think that he was the best Bond.

am i missing something?if connery,moore or dalton weren't the best bond,and i've an idea you don't like danny,then who is the best bond fish face?

Willie Garvin · February 2008

Fish1941/CTrent49 is no longer with us.

However,based upon her many comments, it appears as if(and this only my interpretation)that--in her opinion--none of the Bond actors was really more outstanding than the other one.And as a result,they each had their good points and they each had their flaws.

Just a guess.

Smoke_13 · February 2008

Tee Hee wrote:

[Picks up the red scrambler]

"Moore Not Less? T.H. here. We've got a bit of a situation over at AJB.

Yes. Appears to be another outbreak of Moore Derangement Syndrome (MDS). Moore-Ons are everwhere!

Fire up the Lotus at once! We've got to contain this menace before it spreads to the outer reaches of the James Bond fan community, namely Mi6 and CBn.

What's that? You installed a new horn? A Tarzan yell you say? Excellent.

Attire? Clown suit optional this time.

Steady that shark gun! I don't think you'll be needing it on this mission. Wrist dart gun should be sufficient.

Yes, I'll supply the tunes. Beach Boys? Who else?

Now hurry and pick me up. When you pull into my driveway, give me a slide whistle and I'll join you.

I just hope we're not too late."

[Hangs up]

That was incredibly funny!!!!!!
Thanks for the laugh. The slide whistle in the driveway was the best.

For those old enough to remember...

Comments